Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Valdezgreen2 sentences2008See Perry v. State , 158 S.W.3d 438 , 449 (Tex. Crim. 2008See Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 449 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). | 3 | 3 |
Russeau v. Stategreen1 sentence2015App. 2010) (addressing the mitigating-evidence instruction and the “10-12 rule”); Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871, 886 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jurek v. Texasgreen2 sentences2002See Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). 2002See Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Richardson v. State, 901 S.W.2d 941, 942 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 2617 , 132 L.Ed.2d 859 (1995). 1997Richardson v. State, 901 S.W.2d 941, 942 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2617 , 132 L.Ed.2d 859 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Penry v. Lynaughred2 sentences1996But even with this legislative response to Penry, Texas’ death penalty scheme continues to narrow the class of “death-eligible” defendants while also providing a jury with more discretion than it had under Texas’ prior statutory scheme “to decline to impose the death penalty.” See Penry, 492 U.S. at 327, 327 , 109 S.Ct. at 2945-52, 2951 (“ ‘in contrast to the carefully defined standards that must narrow a sentencer’s discretion to impose the death sentence, the Constitution limits a State’s ability to narrow a senteneer’s discretion to consider relevant evidence that might cause it to decline 1996But even with this legislative response to Penry, Texas’ death penalty scheme continues to narrow the class of “death-eligible” defendants while also providing a jury with more discretion than it had under Texas’ prior statutory scheme “to decline to impose the death penalty.” See Penry, 492 U.S. at 327, 327 , 109 S.Ct. at 2945-52, 2951 (“ ‘in contrast to the carefully defined standards that must narrow a sentencer’s discretion to impose the death sentence, the Constitution limits a State’s ability to narrow a senteneer’s discretion to consider relevant evidence that might cause it to decline | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Stategreen1 sentence1995See Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285, 301 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (need not address complaint as to mitigating evidence charge since defendant was not entitled to mitigating evidence charge). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2015App. 2005) (addressing the “10-12 rule”). 49 466 U.S. 668 (1984). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Guinn v. Hesse
green
2 sentences1997Richardson v. State, 901 S.W.2d 941, 942 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 2617 , 132 L.Ed.2d 859 (1995). 1997Richardson v. State, 901 S.W.2d 941, 942 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2617 , 132 L.Ed.2d 859 (1995). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Rios v. State
green
1 sentence1994The instruction given was nearly identical to the instruction approved of in Fuller, 829 S.W.2d at 209 . 16 Appellant relies on Rios v. State, 846 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), as authority. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Fuller v. State
green
1 sentence1994The instruction given was nearly identical to the instruction approved of in Fuller, 829 S.W.2d at 209 . 16 Appellant relies on Rios v. State, 846 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), as authority. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.